2014 (11) TMI 787 - AT - Customs

Waiver of pre deposit - Valuation of HCG 3 mm strip and LH 3 mm strip - identical goods had been imported at an enhanced value, during the comparable period at other Custom station - Held that - No evidence has been produced that the submission of the Managing Director that one of the import was in bulk and the other was in retail packs has not been considered, has not been verified and has not been investigated. At the same time, there is not even an observation why this claim was not accepted. Both of them have held that the goods are identical. Similarly the supplier s letter also has been ignored. It is also not on record that the samples were drawn in both the places and the samples are similar. It is also not on record that the goods have been examined by any of the officers or recovered to examine this aspect. Prima facie, we find that appellant has a strong case on merits and therefore the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and stay against recovery is granted during the pendency of appeal - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported HCG 3 mm strip and LH 3 mm strip

Valuation of Imported Goods:
The issue in this case pertains to the valuation of HCG 3 mm strip (pregnancy testing strip) and LH 3 mm strip (ovulation test strip) imported by the appellants between February 2011 to May 2011. The dispute arose when the Deputy Commissioner rejected the declared value in the bill of entry, citing that similar goods had been imported at a higher value during the same period at another Customs station. The comparison was made between the value of goods imported through Mumbai Customs and Bangalore ACC. The appellant argued that the difference in price was due to varying quantities and packaging differences. The Managing Director and the supplier provided explanations supporting this claim. However, the lower authorities held that the goods were identical and only differed in commercial levels, disregarding the evidence presented. They did not consider the Managing Director's explanation regarding the bulk and retail packaging differences, nor did they verify or investigate this claim. Additionally, there was no mention of whether samples were drawn, examined, or compared between the two import locations. The Tribunal found that the appellant had a strong case on merits, leading to the waiver of the pre-deposit requirement and granting a stay against recovery during the appeal process.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision focused on the valuation of imported goods, specifically the HCG 3 mm strip and LH 3 mm strip. The case highlighted discrepancies in the valuation process, where the appellant's explanations regarding quantity and packaging differences were not adequately considered by the lower authorities. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the claim that the goods were identical and failed to address the explanations provided by the Managing Director and supplier. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, granting a stay against recovery during the appeal process due to the strong merits of the case.